Politics are getting too personal

After reading certain items in the news recently, one can't help but feel worried about the mode of interaction between Taiwan's government and local society. First, the Academia Sinica's (中研院) budget was slashed by an unprecedented amount. Next, members of the media became involved in a series of political storms. Finally, there was the commotion about the re-election of the director of the Chiang Ching-kuo Foundation (蔣經國國際學術交流基金會).

In all these events, the two main representatives of local society, academia and the media, became engulfed in political flames. This was perhaps due to the involvement of certain of their members in politics, or perhaps because they are not part of the government yet still receive government assistance. This kind of development truly deserves our concern.

When political struggle spreads to non-government territory ?? or to use the more popular expression, when "politicization" occurs ?? it will eventually turn us into an "illiberal democracy." It is well known that in the realm of politics, struggle is a common phenomenon. Admittedly, practical resource allocation and jockeying for position engender struggle. Thinking and ideological debates that appear noble are even more the source of large-scale conflicts, and this is what the social thinker Max Weber meant when he said, "politics is an eternal struggle between the gods."

Political struggle, because of never-ending conflicts of interest and ideological warfare, will never disappear. The only feasible thing to do is to restrict the scope and method of struggle, and attempt to transform unlimited struggle into a form of limited competition. On the one hand, political problems are solved democratically on a foundation of equal participation, while on the other hand, the rules of the game for autonomy in certain areas don't necessarily conform to the democratic method. Examples of the latter situation include the quest for excellence in academic research, the quest for beauty in art, and the media's quest for truth. None of these pursuits necessarily echoes the thinking or tastes of the public. Hence the existence of "professional ethics" in each of these areas.

If this duality fails to exist, every matter of debate will take "stand on the side of the people" as its standard as soon as the battle lines of political struggle are extended. Political crisis will inevitably lead to fighting throughout society and paralyze every area of previously healthy cooperation. Imagine if, during the recent crisis in the US presidential election, the supporters of Al Gore and George Bush had refused to cooperate on all levels. What would have happened to America? When political camps are dragged into non-political areas of society, and try to make politics come first, it amounts to what the scholars call "illiberal democracy."

Back in the days of martial law, the party-state machine politicized every aspect of local life. We've tasted that kind of "unfreedom" already. In the current democratic age, the legitimacy of rule has been greatly strengthened, but this does not mean that democratic power can be used at will to invade the individual's space and destroy free society. Thus, it is sincerely hoped that, be it the new government or the Legislative Yuan, all will abide by the old saying, "let politics be politics." The supervision of the new government's handling of capital shouldn't be lumped together with irrelevant affairs. It is also hoped that both Taiwan's scholars and media can learn to treasure our hard-won self-determination and self-discipline. We shouldn't confuse the areas of political participation and political struggle. Preserve some reason in a society rampant with conspiracy theories -- as members of a free society, this is our unshirkable mission.